JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Diptiman Singh for the petitioner, Shri Anil Babu for the respondent no. 3, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra for the respondent no. 5, Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 02.07.2016 directing demarcation after accepting the reports dated 02.03.2016 of the Revenue Inspector forwarded by the Tehsildar, Sadar on 16.03.2016. 3. Relevant facts briefly stated are that the respondents claim on the basis of a sale deed allegedly executed in their favour by the respondent no. 6. The date of this sale deed is not available on record. 4. Plot No. 90 situated in Village Ahirwan, Kanpur Nagar was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 31.10.1964. After notification under Section 6 etc., possession over the land acquired had been taken on 20.12.1965. The possession certificate in this regard has been filed on record as Annexure 4. Perusal of this possession certificate reveals that possession of 12 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot no. 90M was taken. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact plot No. 90, had been acquired as a whole but since in the possession certificate, plot no. 90M has been mentioned, the same has given rise to the present dispute. 6. The submission that the entire area of plot No. 90 has been acquired, is according to the petitioner, corroborated by the objection filed by the Ajit Kumar and Udai Narain against the acquisition. In this objection they have referred to plot No. 90 and there is no reference or mention of plot no. 90M and therein compensation regarding the entire 12 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot No. 90 was claimed by the objectors. 7. The S.L.A.O. passed the award, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This award is dated 28.02.1970. Even in the award there is only mention of plot No. 90 and not 90M. 8. 90M and therein compensation regarding the entire 12 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot No. 90 was claimed by the objectors. 7. The S.L.A.O. passed the award, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This award is dated 28.02.1970. Even in the award there is only mention of plot No. 90 and not 90M. 8. After the land was handed over to the petitioner, a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was granted on 15.07.1993. 9. In the year 1994, Ajit Kumar filed suit No. 154 for permanent injunction against the petitioner. Even in this suit, the injunction was claimed with regard to plot No. 90 and only 4 Bighas thereof. In this plaint, for the first time, it was alleged that the total area of plot no. 90 was 18 Bigha 3 Biswa; that 2 Bigha 8 Biswa was railway line and airport. 10. In this suit, an interim injunction was granted directing the petitioner to release 2 Bigha land in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents in the writ petition. 11. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 34160 of 2001. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.05.2005, copy whereof is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of this judgment is quoted herein below: - "3. The contesting respondents have filed a suit for injunction. In this suit the relief of declaration is inherent. The plaint allegations are that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act unless and until the court comes to the conclusion that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it can not be released in favour of the contesting respondents. The respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to release two Bighas of land. The order dated 12.3.2001 is illegal and is hereby quashed. The Original Suit filed by the contesting respondents namely Original Suit No. 154/94 may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 4. With these observations the writ petition is allowed." 12. It is submitted that subsequently this suit was dismissed for default on 16.11.2015. 13. The Original Suit filed by the contesting respondents namely Original Suit No. 154/94 may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 4. With these observations the writ petition is allowed." 12. It is submitted that subsequently this suit was dismissed for default on 16.11.2015. 13. The submission therefore is that despite dismissal of the suit, the impugned order has been passed for demarcation of 2 Bigha of land claimed by the petitioner, by means of the order impugned in the writ petition. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the suit filed by the respondents has been dismissed for default, such an order shall operate as estoppel against them, and no order to the contrary can be passed, especially in summary proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 15. At the very outset, Shri Anil Babu, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. His submission was that against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy by means of an appeal under Section 210 of the Act followed by a revision under Section 219 of said Act. These statutory alternative remedies have not been availed and, therefore, the writ petition merits dismissal of this short ground. 16. On the merits of the impugned order, it has been submitted that the petitioner has taken possession over 2 Bighas land, which was never acquired and belongs to the respondents. The title and claim of the respondent to this 2 Bighas of land stands established and it is this land, which has been ordered to be demarcated by the order impugned. The petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed, even on merits. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 18. It is true that against the order impugned, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy, yet this Court is not inclined to dismiss this writ petition on this ground. Proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not determine the title of the parties. These are summary proceedings and the orders passed therein are subject to final order passed in regular title proceedings. 19. Proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not determine the title of the parties. These are summary proceedings and the orders passed therein are subject to final order passed in regular title proceedings. 19. It stands admitted that the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed for default on 06.11.2015. Therefore, the claim of title as regards 2 Bighas of plot no. 90, raised by the respondents as on date has not been established on their suit being dismissed for default. Not only is the Sub Divisional Magistrate not competent to pass an order to the contrary, which amounts to overriding the order passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 20. For this reason, I do not consider it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the statutory alternative remedy. Moreover, for the reasons given, the impugned order, in my considered opinion is illegal and is not liable to be sustained. The writ petition therefore, is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.07.2016 is liable to be set aside. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submit that one restoration application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2015 dismissing the suit for injunction, in default. 22. It goes without saying that in case, the restoration application is allowed and the suit of the respondents decreed finally, they shall be entitled to whatever benefits that may accrue them on the basis of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Besides, dismissal of this writ petition does not, in any manner, preclude the respondents from pursuing suit itself. 23. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion and subject to observations made, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.